Social Influence Flashcards
Definition of conformity:
Yielding to group pressure
What is compliance?
Publicly, not privately, going along with majority influence to gain social approval and avoid ridicule. Weak/temporary and only shown in the presence of group.
What is Internalisation?
Public and private acceptance of majority influence, through adoption of the majority group’s belief system. Stronger and permanent form of conformity, as it is maintained outside of the group’s presence.
What is Identification?
Public and private acceptance of majority influence in order to gain group acceptance. Stronger form of conformity, but still temporary - don’t always agree with the group.
What is ISI?
ISI (Informational Social Influence) is a cognitive process because it is to do with what you think. ISI is an explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe it is correct.
Where is ISI shown and what type of conformity does it explain?
It’s shown in crisis situations and if the situation is new to you. ISI is internalisation.
What is NSI?
NSI (Normative Social Influence) is an emotional process and is an explanation of conformity that states we agree with the opinion of the majority as we want to be accepted and gain social approval.
When is NSI shown and what type of conformity does it explain?
It is shown with people we know and within stressful situations. It explains compliance.
What is temporal validity?
If it is acceptable today and stood the test of time.
What are social roles?
The parts people play as members of various social groups. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role.
What is obedience?
A type of social influence which causes a person to act in response to an order given by another person. The person who gives the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming.
What was the aim of Zimbardo’s experiment?
Zimbardo wanted to see if prison guards behave brutally because they have sadistic personalities or if it is due to the situation that forms such behaviour. Also he was curious to see if good people conform to be bad. This interested him due to the police brutality reports that flooded America in the 1960s.
Who proposed the three types of conformity?
Kelman (1958)
Participants of Asch’s experiment:
123 American male undergraduates
Procedure of Asch’s experiment:
- Participants were tested individually with a group of six and eight confederates. The naive participate was not aware of this.
- They were shown two cards at a time. One had a ‘standard white line’ and the other had three ‘comparison lines’. One line from the three comparison lines match the ‘standard white line’ when the other two were significantly disproportionate.
- On the first few trials, all confederates have the right answers but began to make errors. Altogether each participant took part in 18 trials and on 12 trials, the confederates gave the wrong answer.
- (there was a control group where all participants judged the line lengths in isolation)
Asch’s findings and his conclusions:
Findings: naive participants gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time. Overall, 25% of the participants did not conform on any trials - 75% confirmed at least once.
Conclusion of findings: ‘Asch effect’ - people were willing to ignore reality and give an incorrect answer in order to conform to the rest of the group. When participants were interviewed after, they said they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI).
Asch repeated his study to investigate situational factors. What happened when he changed the group size?
With only 2 confederates instead of six or 8, only 14% of participants conformed. With three confederates, conformity rose to 31.8%. Small majorities are easier to resist than larger ones but the influence does not keep increasing with the size of majority.
Asch repeated his study to investigate situational factors. What happened when he changed the unanimity (social support)?
Asch introduced a confederate who disagreed with the others. A dissenter who gave the correct answer led conformity to the majority to drop to 5.5%. A dissenter who gave a different incorrect answer led conformity to the majority to drop to 9%.
Asch repeated his study to investigate situational factors. What happened when he changed the task difficulty?
Asch changed the length of the lines to make the ‘comparison lines’ more similar in length. Conformity increased under these conditions because ISI plays a greater role when the task becomes harder as the situation becomes more ambiguous.
What were some methodological issues of Asch’s experiment?
- All male
- All undergraduates
- All American
- Not generalisable - not a naturalistic situation
- Lack of ecological validity - not applicable to real world
Evaluation against Asch - A child of it’s times (Perrin and Spencer)
- Perrin and Spencer (1980) repeated Asch’s original study
- 1 of 396 UK engineering students conformed, possibly due to finding the tasks easier because of their line of study. Shows that Asch’s study lacks temporal validity and people are possibly less conformist today
- This shows people were more likely to conform to established social norms
Evaluation against Asch - Artificial Situation
- The situation isn’t representative of how we conform in our day-to-day life.
- Fisk (2014) ‘Asch’s groups weren’t very groupy’. So they could be less likely to conform due to their emotional feelings to one another.
- Cannot be generalised
-The participants might not have gone along with the demands of the situation - could just be doing it for the money
Against Asch - Limited application of findings - Individual differences (physical)
- In the 1970s it was suggested women would be more conformist, possibly due to more care of social relationships.
- Eagly and Carli (1981) reanalysed the data from previous studies (meta-analysis) and found that sex differences were inconsistent
- Eagly (1987) argued that different social roles explains the differences in conformity: Women are more concerned with group harmony whilst assertiveness and independence are valued male attributes
Evaluation against Asch’s research - cultural differences
- Individualistic cultures (UK and USA) is where personal goals take preference. They have more concern about self.
- Social behaviour in collectivist cultures (China) is determined by goals with the collective rather than separate from it.
- (Bond and Smith, 1996) Found that conformity rates are higher in collectivist cultures
Is it fair to conclude conformity from Asch’s findings?
- 2/3 of the trials - participants stuck to their original opinion despite being faced with an overwhelming majority.
- Asch believed the study demonstrated independence and not conformity
3 reasons why people conform:
- Distortion of perception: Came to see the lines in the same way as the majority
- Distortiom of judgement: Felt doubt about the accuracy of their judgement so sided with the majority
- Distortion of action: Continued to trust their own judgement and perception but changed behaviour to avoid disapproval
Evaluation to support Asch’s research - Research support for ISI - Lucas et al. (2006)
— Lucas eat al. (2006) ‘self- efficacy’
- Students were asked to give answers to mathematical problems, that were easy or more difficult
- There was greater conformity to incorrect answers when they were difficult rather than when they were easier.
- This was more likely the case for students who rated their mathematical ability as poor.
- Results indicated people conform in situations where they feel they don’t know the answer - low self efficacy
Evaluation against Asch - Research against NSI due to individual differences
- People who are less concerned with being liked are less likely to be affected by NSI, than those who don’t care about being liked
- Described as nAffiliators - people who have a greater need for ‘affiliation’
- McGhee and Teevan (1967): students high in need of affiliation were more likely to conform
- Criticism of NSI: Individual differences in the way people respond
- ISI doesn’t always affect everyone’s behaviour. Asch found students were less conformist
- Perrin and Spencer (1980) science and engineering students have very little conformity
Evaluation supports Asch’s research - ISI and NSI working together - dissenter
— Asch (1951): conformity is reduced when there’s one other dissenting participant
- The dissenter might reduce the power of NSI because the dissenter provides social support
- Or may reduce the power of ISI because there’s an alternative source of information
- Casts doubt over the view of ISI and NSI as two processes operating independently in conforming behaviour
Evaluation to support Asch’s research - Support for NSI - write down
- Asch (1951) found many of his participants went along with a clearly wrong answer because other people did. When asked why they did this, they said they felt self-conscious about giving the correct answer and they were afraid of disapproval.
- When Asch repeated the study but asked participants to write down their answers, conformity fell to 12.5%
- This is a strength because it shows people were more prepared to give the wrong answer just to be liked, rather than to give the correct answer just to be right, as suggested by NSI.
What were the ethical issues with Asch’s research. Do the benefits outweigh the cost?
Deception - they thought the other people were part of the study.
Benefits outweigh the cost - gives us information about conformity in society and shows us the destructive possibilities of conformity and how to combat it. The ethical issues were fairly unproblematic (mild embarrassment) and was dealt with by a debrief form.
Outline the procedure, findings and conclusions of the SPE (Haney et al.) (1973)
- Mock prison created and PPTs randomly assigned to guards or prisoners. PPTs arrested from home and blindfolded strip-searched and deloused.
- Roles were clearly divided - prisoners had 16 rules to follow, which were enforced by guards who were all dressed in uniform with tinted glasses. Guards had total control.
- Guards took their roles quickly, constantly harassing and abusing prisoners.
- Prisoners rebelled against the guards - rebellion was put down and prisoners became subdued and depressed.
- The experiment had to be ended after 6 days instead of the intended 14.
Criticisms of Zimbardo and his responses to them:
- Didn’t give informed consent
- Humiliated
- Ends do not justify the means (Savin, 1973)
Zimbardo responded:
- Spoke to participants and reassured them
- Longitudinal care
- Made people uneasy
Evaluation against Zimbardo - Affects on mental health
- Prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious
- One prisoner was released early due to symptoms of psychological disturbance
- Two more were released on the fourth day
- One prisoner went on a hunger strike - resulted in guards force feeding and putting him into the ‘hole’ as punishment
- This prisoner was shunned by other prisoners most likely because he was making the guards more mad so they would take more anger out on the other prisoners too.
- It was only stopped after Malash claimed they were being cruel.
Evaluation to support Zimbardo - Real World application - Abu Ghraib
- From 2003-2004, the US military police personnel committed series human rights violations against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.
- Prisoners were tortured, physically and sexually abused, routinely humiliated and some were murdered.
Why did the prison guards conform (from one in specific)?
Lynndie England claimed she didn’t actually hurt anyone and she was only in photographs. She did it because her husband told her ‘if you love me you will do this’.
Positive evaluation - Zimbardo and his colleagues had some control over variables which was seen in the selection of participants
- Emotionally stable individuals were chosen and randomly assigned to the roles of guards and prisoners
- Behaviour must have been due to the pressure of the situation as they were randomly assigned.
- This increases the internal validity of the experiment
Evaluation against Zimbardo - Lacks realism
— Banuazizi and Mohavedi (1975) argued that participants were merely playing-acting rather than genuinely conforming to a role.
- Based on stereotypes
- One of the guards claimed he based his role on a brutal character in the film ‘Cool Hand Luke’
- Prisoners rioted because they thought that’s what real prisoners did
Evaluation against Zimbardo : Role of dispositional influences - exaggerated
Fromm (1973) accused Zimbardo of exaggerating the power of the situation to influence behaviour and minimising the role of personality factors.
- Only a third of the guards behaved in a brutal manner
- Another third were keen on applying rules fairly and the rest actively tried to help the prisoners
- The conclusion drawn that participants were conforming to social roles could be over stated.
- The guards were able to exercise right or wrong choices, despite the situational pressure to conform to a role.
Evaluation against Zimbardo - Reicher and Haslam’s BBC replication of SPE (2006)
- Findings show the prisoners took control of the mock prison and subjected the guards to a campaign of harassment and disobedience
- Social Identity Theory (Tajifel, 1981) - guards failed to develop a shared social identity as a cohesive group but the prisoners did.
- Prisoners actively identified themselves as members of a social group that refused to accept the limits of their assigned role.
Ethical concerns with Zimbardo’s experiment:
When PPTs asked to leave the prison warden was acting as a prison warden instead of a researcher and would not let them leave. Zimbardo should have remained detached from the experiment.
Outline Milgram’s research into obedience (Procedure and Findings)
Procedure: ‘Teacher’ gave fake electric shocks to ‘learner’ during a ‘learning task’, ordered to do so by an experimenter. At 315V the ‘learner’ pounded on the wall for the last time. The researcher did prod the ‘teacher’ by saying ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’ etc.
Findings: No participants stopped before 300V and 65% went all the way to the top of the shocking scale (450V). Many showed signs of stress, most objected but continued anyway. The prior survey would say 3% would obey.
Milgram’s conclusions of his experiment:
- Ordinary people are astonishingly obedient to authority when asked to behave in an inhumane way
- It isn’t necessarily evil people who commit evil crimes but ordinary people who are just obeying orders
- Crimes against humanity may be the outcome of situational rather than dispositional factors
- An individual’s capacity for making independent decisions is suspended under certain situational constraints - namely, being given an order by an authority figure
Examples of obedience shown in history:
- The Holocaust, 1933-1945 = Nazis kill 5-6 million Jews
- My Lai Massacre, Vietnam 1968 = 500 villagers killed by US troops
- Khmer Rouge, Cambodia 1975-9 = Khmer Rouge kill 1-2 million people
- Rwandan Genocide, 1994 = Hutus kill 500,000 people
- Abu Graib prison abuses, 2004 = American soldiers tortured Iraqi prisoners
What is internal validity?
The degree to which the observed effect occurred due to the manipulated IV (was the experiment testing what it stated)
Evaluation against Milgram - low internal validity
- Orem and Holland (1968) argued participants behaved the way they did because they didn’t really believe in the set up so it lacked internal validity.
Perry (2013) listened to tapes of Milgram’s participants and reported that many of them expressed their doubts about the shocks
Research to support Milgram - Realism (Sheridan and King)
Sheridan and King (1972) support the realism of Milgram’s study with their own findings. They asked PPTs to give electric shocks to a puppy. Shocks were real, PPTs could see and hear the puppy. Male = 54% delivered maximum shock. Female = 100% delivered maximum shock.
Evaluation to support Milgram - supporting replication
The supporting replication (The game of death, 2010) ‘La zone Xtreme’. 80% PPTs delivered the maximum shock of 460V to an unconscious man.
Evaluation to support Milgram - Good external validity
A central feature of the experiment was the relationship between authority figure and participant.
- Hofling et al. (1966), studies nurses on a hospital ward and found that levels of obedience to unjustified demands by doctors were very high as 21 of 22 obeyed
Evaluation against Milgram - Ethical issues
Baumrind (1964) was very critical about the way Milgram deceived his PPTs.
- They believed they were randomly allocated the roles of teacher or learner.
- They believed the electric shocks were real
- This level of betrayal of trust could damage the reputation of other psychologists part of the experiment.
Evaluation against Milgram - Social Identity Theory - Key to obedience lies in group identification
- PPTs identified with the experimenter and identified with the science of the study
- If the obedience level fell this was due to PPTs identifying less with the science and more with the learner
- Hallam and Reicher (2010) the first three prods did not demand obedience, they appeal for help with the science
What are situational variables?
Factors that affect someone’s level of obedience. Factors that are all due to external circumstances.
How did proximity affect Milgram’s experiment and the various variations of it?
- In the original study (‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ were in adjoining rooms) = 65% of teachers obeyed the doctor
- Variation ( ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ in the same room) = 40% of teachers obeyed the doctor
- Another Variation (the ‘teacher’ had to force the ‘learner’s’ hand onto an electroshock plate when he refused to answer a question (touch proximity)) = obedience dropped to 30%
- Another Variation (experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the ‘teacher’ through phone ( remote proximity)) = obedience dropped to 21%
How did location of the experiment affect obedience levels in Milgram’s experiment?
- Original study (Yale university (prestigious university)) = 65% of ‘teachers’ obeyed the doctor and committed to full voltage
- Variation (run-down office down town) = 47.5% of teachers obeyed the doctors and committed to full voltage
How did uniform affect obedience levels in Milgram’s experiments?
- Original study ( experimenter wore a lab coat) = 65% of teachers obeyed the doctor and committed full voltage
- Variation (Role of experimenter carried out by ordinary member of public) = 20% of teachers obeyed the doctor and committed to full voltage
Research support for Milgram - Bickman’s more realistic approach
Bickman (1974) tested the ecological validity of Milgram’s work by conducting an experiment in a more realistic setting. In this study three male researchers gave direct requests to 153 randomly selected pedestrians in Brooklyn, NY. The researchers were dressed in one of three ways: guard uniform, milkman’s uniform and civilian clothing. Bickman observed 80% of participants obeyed the researcher dressed as a police officer whereas only 40% of those approached by the researcher in civilian or milkman clothes obeyed the request.
Additional support for Milgram - Bushman’s parking meter experiment
Bushman (1988) carried out a study where a female researcher dressed either in a ‘police’ uniform, a business executive or as a beggar, stopped people in the street and told them to give change to a male researcher for an expired parking meter. When she was in uniform 72% of people obeyed, whereas obedience rates were much lower when she was dressed as a business executive (48%) or as a beggar (52%).
Support for Milgram - Control of variables + cross-cultural replications
- Controlling variables like this means it’s possible for other researchers to repeat the study in the exact same way.
- Both Milgram’s original study, and his variations have been replicated in other cultures and found similar results. Spanish students 90%. This suggests Milgram’s findings aren’t limited to US males but are valid across all cultures (and apply to women). But most replications have been carried out in western societies.
Against Milgram - Lack of internal validity
- The original study has been criticised as it was suggested that the participants guessed that the shocks weren’t real and therefore their ‘real’ behaviour wasn’t being measured.
- It’s likely the PPTs realised the study wasn’t real and that they were being tested. Therefore their behaviour may simply have been demand characteristics.
Against Milgram - The obedience alibi from the past
- Some people consider a situational perspective on the Holocaust offensive because it removes personal responsibility from the perpetrators.
- To suggest that Nazi executioners of Jews were ‘only doing their duty by obeying orders’ implies that they were also the victims of situational pressures and that anyone faced with a similar situation would have behaved in the same way. Running the risk of trivialising genocide.
What is the agentic state?
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour as we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure. Freeing us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
What is legitimacy of authority?
An explanation for obedience which suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us. This authority is justified by the individuals position of power within a social hierarchy.
What is the autonomous state?
A state in which someone is independent and are free to behave in accordance to their own principles and therefore feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
What is agentic shift?
The shift from autonomy to agency
Define situational
Explanations that focus on the influences that stem from the environment in which that individual is found.
Define dispositional
An explanation of individual behaviour caused by internal characteristics that reside within the individual’s personality
What is an authoritarian personality?
A collection of personality traits developed from strict parenting like conformist and conventional. These people are usually obedient towards people of perceived higher status.
What was the F scale?
It stands for fascism scale and it measures authoritarian personalities.
High RWA (Right-wing authoritarian) people possess three important characteristics:
- Conventionalism - adhering to conventional norms and values
- Authoritarian aggression - aggressive feelings towards people who violate these norms
- Authoritarian submission - uncritical submission to legitimate authorities
What were traits of people who scored high on the F-Scale?
They identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’. They were conscious of their own and others’ status and showed blind respect to people with power. Authoritarian people had a cognitive style - no fuzziness between categories of people (v. Black and white thinking).
Research support for Authoritarian personality with a criticism
Milgram and Elms (1966) interviewed fully obedient participants who scored highly on the F Scale. They suggested there could be a link between obedience and authoritarian personality.
However, Hyman and Sheatsley (1954) found that the Authoritarian personality is more likely to exist among less educated people and those of a low economic social status. But these results are inconsistent with the explanation - these people should be considered the subordinated and the rebellious, not the ‘strict and oppressive’. So maybe personality isn’t needed to explain obedience.
Evaluation against Authoritarian personality - Political bias
Christie and Jahoda (1954) - F-scale measures tendency towards an extreme right wing ideology. This could be a politically biased interpretation of authoritarian personality.
Evaluation against Authoritarian personality - methodological problems
Measurement of authoritarianism relies on self-report (F-scale) data which may be invalid die to social desirability bias. Greenstein (1969) - the F-scale is ‘a comedy of methodological errors’ - you could tick the same line of boxes down one side (agree…) of the page and score as HIGH authoritarian. This is Acquiescence bias - the tendency to simply agree with everything. It would be better to randomise so that ‘agree’ didn’t link to one direction.
How does self-image affect agentic shift?
Once they move into the agentic state worrying about their own image is no longer as relevant. They see the action as no longer being their responsibility or reflections of their own self-image.
Research support for Legitimate authority - ‘Glass and Schmitt’
Glass and Schmitt (2001) - Students who were shown a video of Milgram’s experiment blamed the experimenter, rather than the teacher. Responsibility is due to legitimate authority - top of the hierarchy as he was an expert scientist.
Evidence against the apathetic state and real-life obedience
Milgram claimed people shift between autonomous and agentic state. Evidence against this - doctors in the concentration camps in Auschwitz carried out vile and lethal experiments on victims. Carrying out acts of evil over extended period of time can change the way people think and feel.
Mixed evaluation of Legitimate authority and agentic state - culture
- Kilman and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s study in Australia. 16% of people went to max volts
- Mantell (1971) replicated Milgram’s study in Germany. 85% of people went to max volts.
In some cultures authoritarian is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience. Also the way children are brought up affects the way they obey in the future.
Evidence to support redefining the situation and legitimate authority - Cockpit culture
Review of accidents - second pilot didn’t want to question authority of the lead pilot - ‘cockpit culture’. Air Asiana crash (2013) ‘didn’t want to question captains orders’
Evidence against agentic shift - a limited explanation - Hofling et al
The agentic shift explanation predicts that the nurses handed over responsibilities to the doctor and they should have shown levels of anxiety similarly to Milgram’s as they understood their role in the destructive process, but they did not.
What is resistance to social influence?
The ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority. This ability is influenced by situational and dispositional factors.
What is Locus of control?
Refers to the sense we each have about what directs events in our lives. Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them. Externals believe it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces.
What conditions make people more likely to resist?
- Morals
- Strong views
- Intelligence
- Confidence
- Social support
(Resisting conformity) The introduction of an ally caused conformity levels to drop sharply from 33% to 5.5% in Asch’s experiment. How does social support enable people to resist conformity?
An ally raises the potential for other legitimate ways of thinking and makes them feel more confident in resisting the majority.
(Resisting obedience) In Milgram’s variation, three individuals testing the learner with 2 confederates who resisted, resulting in only 10% continued to max volts. Why?
The individuals are more confident in their ability to resist when they have an ally who is willing to oppose the authority figure. Someone else’s disobedience acts as a ‘model’ to copy - frees the conscious.
On the LoC Rotter Scale, what does the result of ‘internal’ tell you about this person?
- ‘I control my own destiny’
- Tend to be leaders
- More likely to resist control from others
- More likely to blame themselves if something goes wrong
On the LoC Rotter Scale, what does the result of ‘external’ tell you about this person?
- ‘Others control my own destiny’
- Good understanding of social/world issues
- A critical mind
- Better interpersonal skills
Supporting evaluation for resistance to conformity
Allen and Levine (1971) - conformity decreased when there was one dissenter in an Asch-type study. This also happened if the dissenter wore thick glasses and he said he had difficulty with his vision. This supports the view that resistance is not just motivated by following what someone else says but it enables someone to be free of the pressure from the group.
Support for response order (order of the response is important) - important factor
- Allen and Levine - All participants went last. People were more likely to conform when the confederate with the right answer went first as they make a social commitment to the answer.
- Less likely to conform when confederate went 4th - did not have enough time to socially commit.
Supporting evaluation for resistance to obedience - gamson et al.
— Gamson et al. (1983) found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram.
- Participants were in groups and had to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign.
- If they agreed with the manager they signed a consent form for their discussion to be shown in the ‘trial’.
- 29 of 33 rebelled. This shows social support is linked to greater resistance.
— Unjust authority - manager was sacked because his lifestyle was offensive to the local community
Supporting research for LoC - Holland (Milgram)
— Holland (1967) Milgram’s baseline study
- Measured with participants who were internal or external
- 37% of internals didn’t continue to highest shock level, compared to 23% of externals.
- Increased validity
Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American LoC studies over a 40 year period (1960-2002). What pattern did they suggest?
Over time people have become more resistant to obedience but also overall more external, this is due to a changing society.
Evaluation against LoC - limited use of LoC
—LoC and the role in resisting obedience is exaggerated
—Rotter (1982) only comes into play in novel situations
- Has little influence over our behaviour in familiar situations where our previous experiences will always be more important. Meaning, people are more likely to obey in situations in which is new to them.
Supporting evidence for resisting conformity - social support - Rosenstrasse protest
— Women protested against the holding of 2000 Jewish men and demanded their release. This directly illustrates the idea that social support enables people to resist conformity.
What is minority influence?
A form of social influence in which a minority of people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Leads to internalisation or conversion, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours. Distinct from conformity: majority influence.
Describe Moscovici’s experiment on minority influence
In groups of 6 from overall 192 women, participants judged the colour of 36 slides. All of the slides were blue, but the brightness of the blue varied. Two of the six participants in the group were confederates. In one condition the confederates called all 36 slides ‘green’ (consistent) and in another condition they called 24 ‘green’ and 12 ‘blue’ (inconsistent). A control group was used which contained no confederates,
What were the results and conclusions of Moscovici’s experiment
- In the control group, the participants called the slides ‘green’ 0.25% of the time.
- In the consistent condition, 8.4% of the time participants adopted the minority position and called the slides ‘green’ and 32% of participants called the slides ‘green’ at least once.
- In the inconsistent group, the participants moved to the minority position of calling the slides ‘green’ only 1.25% of the time.
The confederates were in the minority but their views had influence over the real participants. The use of the two conditions illustrated that the minority had more influence when they were consistent.
How does consistency help minority influence?
- If the minority take a consistent approach people start to consider the issue more carefully.
What is synchronic consistency?
They’re all saying the same thing
What is Diachronic consistency?
They’ve been saying the same thing for some time.
How does commitment help minority influence?
- When a minority adopts a committed approach to its position it may become difficult to ignore. E.g. the Green Party - core principles have stayed consistent.
- Joining a minority has a greater cost for the individual, they need to know the serious nature of the campaign or issue.
How does flexibility help minority influence?
- They must negate their position with the majority - have some flexibility to make changes. Having a balance between consistency and flexibility.
Research support for flexibility - repeat of Moscovici’s experiment
—Nemeth et al. (1974) repeated Moscovici’s experiment but instructed participants to answer with all of the colours they saw, rather than a single colour. ‘Green-blue’ for example.
— Three variations:
- Said all the slides were ‘green’
- Said the slides were ‘green’ or ‘blue’ at random
- Said the brighter slides were ‘green-blue’ and the duller slides were ‘green’
— They found: inconsistency had no effect on the participants, varied response had a slight effect on participants. Consistent but flexible.
Research support for flexibility - simulated jury
—Nemeth and Brilmayer (1986) studied the role of flexibility in a simulated jury situation-discussing the amount of compensation paid to someone on a ski lift accident.
- Confederate who put forward an alternative view from the beginning and refused to change their mind - no effect on participants.
- Confederate who compromised and changed their position late - had influence.
Research support for consistency
—Wood et al. (1994), - meta analysis of 97 similar studies
- Consistent minorities were most influential
Research support for commitment
- Change to the minority position does involve deeper processing of ideas
- Martin et al. (2003): One group of PPTs heard a minority group endorsing the same view, another group heard a majority group endorsing the initial viewpoint, PPTs were then exposed to a conflicting view and their support was measured again.
-PPTs were less willing to change their opinions if they listened to a minority group, than a majority. Suggested that the minority message had been more deeply processed and had a more enduring effect.
Research against minority influence - Artificial tasks.
- Tasks involved aren’t generalisable to real life. Which lacks external validity.
- extra real world application: majorities normally have a lot of power and status compared to minorities. Minorities are committed to their cause and sometimes face hostile opposition.
Further research to support commitment - it’s ’tipping point’
- The snowball effect occurs - members of the majority slowly move towards the minority. Once the minority grows in size it reaches a tipping point and picks up momentum so that more and more majority members convert. Eventually the minority grows into a snowball so large it becomes the majority.
Supporting evidence for minority influence - the ‘real’ value of minority influence
- Found that dissenter, in form of minority opinion, ‘opens’ the mind. Dissenters liberate people to say what they believe and they stimulate divergent and creative thought even when they are wrong. Groups had improved decision quality when exposed to a minority influence.
Research support for internalisation
- Private agreement with the minority was greater when participants wrote their answers down. Even when people who supported the majority changed their views and were convinced by the minority - but they were reluctant to admit this publicly. They were feared being called radical.
Social influence definition:
The process by which the individuals and groups change each other’s attitudes and behaviours. Includes conformity, obedience and minority influence.
What is social change?
This occurs when whole societies, rather than individuals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things.
Describe the stages of social change:
- Drawing attention to an issue which opposes the majority position through social proof.
- Consistency: when minorities express their arguments consistently, they are taken more seriously. Meta analysis of 97 studies (wood et al. 1994) showed consistent minorities were particularly influential.
- Deeper processing of the issue: means we examine the minority more deeply. People who accepted the status quo begin to think about the unjustness of it.
- Augmentation principle: if there are risks associated with putting the belief out, it’s taken more seriously
- Snowball effect: minority view catches momentum and becomes a majority view.
- Social cryptomnesia: people have the memory that social change occurred but not how it happened. Public opinion shifts over time and it becomes the norm.
Social influence occurs when the combined effects of three factors are significant enough, what are they?
- Strength - powerful, knowledgeable and consistent
- Immediacy - physical, social or psychological closeness of person providing influence
- Numbers - how many people are in the group
What are terrorists aims and how do they try to bring about social change?
- Kruglanski (2003) - The aim of terrorism is to bring about social change when direct social force is not possible. It’s usually carried out by minority groups. Terrorists are devoted, motivated and committed.
Lessons from conformity research “most of us” campaign 2000-2003
-21-34yr olds. 20.4% had driven one hour after consuming two or more drinks. However 92% of respondents believed the majority of their peers engaged in drunk driving. In the campaign they aimed to readdress this misconception by explaining “4 of 5 don’t drink drive”. This lead to a positive change - 13.7% reduction in drink driving and 16.5% increase in support for lowering drink driving allowance.
Sparkman and Walton (2017) Dynamic and static norms
-In one experiment, PPTs from across the US read two statements about eating less meat. One statement (static) describe how some Americans are currently trying to eat less meat, while the other statement (dynamic) described how some Americans are changing and now eat less meat.
- the PPTs in the dynamic group reported more interest in eating less meat
McVey and Stapleton (2000) - Smokers
-2997 smokers and 2471 ex smokers were shown either anti smoking advertising, they were control groups or were showed an anti smoking campaign with anti smoking advertising.
- 9.8% of smokers had stopped and 4.3% of ex smokers relapsed.
Research support for normative influences - energy consumption
Nolan et al. (2008), investigated whether social influence processes led to a reduction in energy consumption in a community.
- They found a significant decrease in energy usage in the first group (where signs were hung on doors)
- Also knowing that people were saving energy (NSI) lead to social change
Research against minority influence - it’s only indirectly effective
— Not all social norms interventions have led to social change as change is slow, if at all.
— Nemeth (1986) - influence is indirect and delayed
- ‘indirect’ - majority are influenced on matters only related to the issue at hand, and not the central issue itself.
- ‘delayed’ - it takes time for change to happen.
Research against minority influence - role of deeper processing
— Different cognitive processes for minority and majority influence (Moscovici’s)
— Mackie (1987) disagreed and presented evidence that it is majority influence that creates deeper processing, if we don’t share their views.
- We like to believe other people share our view and think in the same way as us.
-If the majority think differently, we are forced to think about their argument and reasoning
Evidence against minority influence and social change - barriers
—Bashir et al. (2013) - resistance to social change
- Stereotypical views on minority groups (tree huggers (environmentalists) and man haters (feminists))
